Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found a half sibling at ancestry.com and another at 23 and me. I spoke with one lady that has been searching for her bio parents, she did 3 dna test at different sites since people use different ones. I joined a group on facebook and there are a lot of us! Lots of different groups. I had no idea this occurred so much! There are a lot of people actually meeting their parents now and siblings.
I have 1150 on ancestry, can't remember how many at 23 and me
I belong to three DNA groups on Facebook myself. Ancestry DNA Matching, Ancestry DNA Birth Family and Search Squad. They are all private groups. Are you on those? Some really great stories, and a few 'sad' ones as well, but those people who run Search Squad are fantastic at finding answers.
[quote=suzy_q2010;55489254]History books can be wrong. There is even counterfeit genealogy. The further you go back, the more likely it is that there was a nonpaternal event. There may or may not be such an event, but DNA may unmask it.
The matches that show up are indeed part of the "basic DNA test". You share identical snippets of DNA with those people. If they are very tiny it may mean that they are not from a shared ancestor. Larger and multiple shared segments imply a relatively recent shared ancestor.
The DNA matches are based on sharing those little pieces of DNA. They are not statistically derived. The degree of relationship is derived from the number of "little pieces" and how long they are, but if someone shows up as a DNA match you are genetically related somehow. You have to compare family trees to find the shared ancestor.
The ethnicity estimate is statistically derived. That is why it can change as the company refines its data.
If Ancestry lists someone as a DNA match that is based entirely on DNA. If you are talking about the little green leaf hints, that is just a suggestion to check out the hint, which is based on who you have in your family tree. Those may or may not be relatives. Also keep in mind that you will have many relatives for which the DNA test will not show a match, even if both of you have tested. Both of you share an ancestor but both of you did not inherit the same DNA from that ancestor.
I have compared family trees with a fair number of distant cousins, and it is amazing how often we do show an identifiable shared ancestor. I found one on FTDNA with whom I am cousins from four different lines.
I was never a history buff when I was in school. I just never had one of those teachers who brought it alive. Genealogy does make history personal. It is one thing to read about the US Civil War. It's quite another to know you had direct ancestors who fought in it: one who was in a prisoner of war camp and one who was wounded but survived. DH has one who was fresh off the boat from Ireland, joined the Union Army,and died in NC - of disease, not wounds, as so many did.
They are either a DNA match or not. Why would it say there is no match? Do you mean no match between family trees?[/quote]
No, not the green leafs. This mostly happens with the very lowest, farthest back, matches. Like 5-8 cousins matches, etc.. It actually says there are no matches but if there ever are I can find them there. So why bother including them? They DO show matches in the family trees but they aren't comprised of ANY DNA because I'm NOT related to those people. We just share a family name because it's the one I, and my family, have so it is included in my tree. Also, it's not even my 'real' family name. And, of course, there's a story behind that too! Other than the fact it isn't mine, my dad's, granddad's OR great granddads. It got changed in 1812. The "no matches" I see the most are the ones who either have no tree, unlinked tree or locked and private. So I wouldn't know if or how they matched anyway.
I have no interest in ever taking a DNA test and I certainly don't want to end up in anyone else's search. I just don't care if there are cousins, half-siblings (would they be the size of hobbits?), finding out that my father was not my father, etc. My father could not have been less interested in being my father. I don't need a test to tell me he wasn't.
I don't see the point in it for me. It seems that people like to talk about this stuff endlessly as though they've discovered they're really long-lost members of the Hapsburg Dynasty. Big deal. You go back far enough and we're all related.
I could never understand people whose one point of pride was that their ancestor came over on the Mayflower.
I'm with you! I find the whole thing terribly clannish and provincial - the idea that just because somewhat is related to you (regardless of the degree) they've suddenly become utterly fascinating. Blood is thicker than water? Meh.
No, not the green leafs. This mostly happens with the very lowest, farthest back, matches. Like 5-8 cousins matches, etc.. It actually says there are no matches but if there ever are I can find them there. So why bother including them? They DO show matches in the family trees but they aren't comprised of ANY DNA because I'm NOT related to those people. We just share a family name because it's the one I, and my family, have so it is included in my tree. Also, it's not even my 'real' family name. And, of course, there's a story behind that too! Other than the fact it isn't mine, my dad's, granddad's OR great granddads. It got changed in 1812. The "no matches" I see the most are the ones who either have no tree, unlinked tree or locked and private. So I wouldn't know if or how they matched anyway.
I am still confused. Why should someone who is not a DNA match show up as a DNA match?
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
I'm with you! I find the whole thing terribly clannish and provincial - the idea that just because somewhat is related to you (regardless of the degree) they've suddenly become utterly fascinating. Blood is thicker than water? Meh.
1) DNA is personal info and no way am I giving that to some web site
2) I rarely talk to the relatives (other than my sis and nieces) that I have so why would I want to find out about others I don't know about?
3) I am who I am and not really all that curious if I am 5% Iberian or 3% Scandinavian or whatever. After just 20 generations, about 500 years, we each have a million progenitors. It would not be surprising at all for a few of those to be Gauls or Visigoths or Moors or some other long lost ethnicity, especially given the violent history of Europe.
I'm with you! I find the whole thing terribly clannish and provincial - the idea that just because somewhat is related to you (regardless of the degree) they've suddenly become utterly fascinating. Blood is thicker than water? Meh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
I am still confused. Why should someone who is not a DNA match show up as a DNA match?
It is just a hobby, for goodness' sake.
I dunno - people sound super excited to find out about 4th cousins and all the loose women in the family.
I took a DNA test recently since I have no family left. I was hoping to find some family on both sides that could help me with my family tree. I got more than I bargained for.
I did it because my younger sister paid for it. Frankly I then put the company on spam list. I don't care if they're having a sale...I don't plan to do it again...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
